WAKE UP KURDISTAN !! : Axin Arbili in OpEd News

KurdishMedia.com - By Axin Arbili

There is no change for the better; there is no turning point in our history: The anti-Kurdish forces of the past are the anti-Kurdish forces of today. Despite the end of Saddam’s dictatorship five years ago, there is still no freedom for the Kurds, no free Kurdistan even in so-called liberated Iraq. Our enemies are busy, as ever, with maintaining the status quo in the Middle East, and they are successful. In return for Kurdish efforts of reconciliation and goodwill, Arabs, with the help of the Turks, have stopped the referendum in Kerkuk and are now doing everything to abolish that constitutional requirement and right. The Kurdish city and especially the oil there are still regarded “Arab patrimony”, and under Saddam this meant Anfal: large-scale ethnic cleansing, deportations, displacement, genocide.

The Kurdish genocide; the murder of more than 350,000 people, the displacement of millions; the depopulation and destructions of the Kurdish landscape seems to have quietly disappeared from collective conscious, from the collective memory and public political discourse; it has almost become irrelevant to our leaders. Nobody remembers the referendum in which the Kurdish people in the south declared their will for self-determination and independence; today we do not see the implementation of the only legitimate will, but we see the instructions and will of Washington, Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Ankara being implemented. The Kurdish leaders in Iraq have become collaborators and clients of US global empire.

The question to be asked and answered is thus: What did the Peshmerga actually fight for in “Operation Iraqi Freedom”? Did they really fight for Kurdish freedom or did they risk their lives so that instead of Sunni Arabs their Shiite kin get the opportunity to rule Baghdad and thus Kurdistan? The answer is quite clear. We missed a unique opportunity to tell our enemies and the world that we don't want to be part of that criminal and hated creation of British imperialism called Iraq; that we want the sanctity of our homelands recognized under international law, that we want a free and sovereign Kurdish society, protected by a Kurdish state and army; that the insults, intimidations, threats, aggressions, crimes against us must end for once and all. Instead of doing the right thing, the Kurdish leaders decided to become presidents and foreign ministers of that terror state of Iraq; we see how they listen to our enemies and follow imperial instructions; we see that there is no progress and peace for our nation. In the political and cultural realities of the world, we do not even exist. We are called Iraqis; south Kurdistan is just northern Iraq in the eyes of the “international community” and others.

The scale of racial hatred against any form of Kurdish independence or even a Kurdish city administration is unimaginably deep and egregious when we compare that the Arabs already have 22 (twenty-two) independent sovereign countries with tens of thousands of rich cities and a population of 350 to 400 million; that there are 7 (seven) independent sovereign Turkic states, 16 (sixteen) Autonomous Turkic republics, with a Turkish/Turkic population of more than 200 million; that the combined Arab und Turkish land masses represent a vast area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia and beyond; that Turks and Arabs fully enjoy all human and ethnic rights monitored under international law. Despite all of their territorial and material wealth (including the largest oil reserves), despite their numerous states, and despite calling themselves compassionate Muslims, Turks and Arabs are not willing to allow the Kurds, who have no other allies or kin, let alone friends, to exercise the same human and ethnic rights, to have their historical, moral, legal rights for self-determination and for their own sovereign country realised.

The “international community” couldn’t care less. Arab oil and Nato-membership of Turkey are too precious for the West to jeopardize by supporting the despised, poor and powerless Kurds. Consequently and historically the USA/EU/NATO have supported their client states rather than supporting democracy and justice in the region. Outside the western spheres, there is no such thing anyway. There are only vital strategic and material interests. There is no right or wrong, moral or immoral for the West when it comes to its vital interests; there is only the will and force to achieve the objectives by all means, at any costs, including genocides. In the Middle East, these are access and control of the energy reserves and expansion of control to yet uncontrolled regions (Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, etc.). In the new strategy paper of the US military for the 21st century, it is now explicitly and officially stated what has been US foreign policy practice for decades and centuries: continuous warfare for depleting energy, food and water resources together with their European kin and local puppets. Since these resources are in other countries and belong to other peoples/races, the US military officially declares to continue targeting the indigenous populations whenever necessary; it other words, there is no distinction between civilian and military; the other culture as a whole is an enemy of the US if it’s in the way. Freedom? Democracy? Only the most naïve and manipulated can still believe in a benevolent Uncle Sam.

So while the Arabs are attacking us in “legal” ways and/or by using terror to prevent Kerkuk becoming part of Kurdish administration; all of the Kurdish territories are under constant attack by the Turkish air force to kill as many “Kurdish terrorists” (= free Kurds) as possible. The Turks are assisted by the Iranian army, and the actions of both the Turkish and Iranian military are approved and supported by the USA/West! On the one side Kemalists and Mullahs are conducting warfare against a defenseless people in open violation of all rules and conventions; on the other there is the “international community” deliberately looking away and allowing crimes against humanity. The UN general meeting demonstrated this once again openly and directly when representatives, including Ahmadinejad, delivered their speeches. He was talking about God, justice, beauty, harmony, brotherhood of man, while at the same time the Iranian army is carrying out its war against the Kurdish population; and the “international community” is wondering whether or not Iran has peaceful intentions toward the West. These are satanic double standards and they show unambiguously that the West is not bothered about the Kurdish situation and fate. The barbarism of the Turkish/Iranian military is matched by the selfish brutality of the West. While some delegations were absent; the foreign minister of Iraq, who is a Kurd, was present and listening. And not only was he present and listening, he actually applauded when this prophet of evil finished his deceitful speech. It was like a scene from a nightmare or directly from hell. I could only feel shame and anger as there can be no understanding let alone justification for such disgraceful behaviour. How can you, as a Kurd, applaud him when this man only has murderous contempt for you and your people. He is the head of a state which is determined to crush Kurdish rights, which imprisons, tortures and kills Kurdish intellectuals and human rights activists; which has been cooperating with the Turks for centuries in occupying and exploiting Kurdish lands; which has always been anti-Kurdish in theory and practice. Knowing all of this, how can you just sit there comfortably, listen and applaud this false prophet when you could, in your position as foreign minister, inform the world public of Iranian and Turkish atrocities?

Our enemies will not take us serious with such figures, they can only laugh at us and do what they like. No wonder that the world has no clue about our tragedy, that the only thing they can relate Kurds to is either terrorism or that we are just plain stupid or masochistic.

The Turks have been demonstrating their contempt for centuries. While we are begging for some democracy; their “constitutional court” is considering the closure of the only Kurdish party in Turkey just because this party wants a free and democratic society with equal rights for every one and, above all, because it is a Kurdish party that represents the Kurds. For the military rulers in Ankara, Kurds representing Kurds and insisting on Kurdish right is just another form of terrorism that needs to be eradicated. As all the previous Kurdish parties were shut down, it is more than likely that this one will also have the same fate. Even if it is not shut down now, it will be reminded of the Turkish sword hanging over its head, ready to be used at any time the party/Kurds say anything different than Kemalist state slogans.

We need to wake up and understand: Democracy is not in the interest of the ruling elites as it would mean the end of Kemalism/Turkish supremacy. Consequently there is no real democracy, all these Turkish parties, the parliament, the courts, the government only a façade for the “international community”. Behind the scenes, the US-backed generals pull the strings and make these puppets move as they wish. If one of them dares to get out of line, there is always the threat and possibility of a military coup to re-arrange and re-install the Kemalist order even more brutally. But as the Turkish society has been thoroughly Kemalized by the Kemalofascist military, bureaucracy, and judiciary for almost a century, and as it has also been thoroughly Islamized by the their Muslim leaders, with their strong economic base; there is no danger of any form of subversion from the Turkish people against the status quo or any wish for real democracy. As long as there is Western support and financing of the Turkish fascist order, as long as the Kurds have no voice and are powerless slaves of Western and local forces; the Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Westerners are quite content and happy with the status quo called “Middle East”.

Given these global, geostrategic, socio-political realities, any talk of democratization of such societies becomes ridiculous, absurd if not pathological. And it is absolute and utter hubris to believe, let alone to suggest that Kurds, as freedom fighters or as political fighters, could democratize Arab or Turkish societies in any way. Not only that Kurds don’t have the means, but they also don’t have the right to attempt any such mad thing. If these societies or states prefer a Kemalist, Baathist, Islamist system or whatever system they want, it is their decision and choice. These are separate societies, separate peoples, separate states. Even Israel, the nuclear and industrial superpower of the region, makes no claim or has a plan of democratizing the Palestinian Arabs or any other Arabs for that matter; how can Kurds talk about democratizing others?! This form of thinking is purely idealistic, wishful, delusional and thus a total waste of time. It will not help our cause in any way, it has just hindered it and blocked real progress, and thus it only has played into the hands of our enemies.

But we have no more time to lose. We are dealing with hostile barbaric forces which only have contempt for us if we try to civilize them with democratic rhetorics and plans. They insult us, spit into our faces, torture and kill us in return to demonstrate that there is no such thing as Kurdish rights. Look around, animals even have more rights in Turkey, Iran, Syria and in the world than Kurds. They make it absolutely clear and act upon the understanding that it's in nobody’s interest that we exist.. The Turks, Arabs, Iranians have been carrying out physical and cultural genocides against the Kurdish nation without any action, even without any real protest from that “civilized international community”. Although on legal and moral basis, these states ought to be sanctioned, boycotted and punished; you see how they are officially recognized and welcomed at every international forum and in every organization.

Wake up and understand; begging for democracy will not bring us anywhere. Has it brought us the freedom of our language, the freedom of speech, freedom for education in our native language; are there any Kurdish institutions, universities? Where are the Kurdish names for our children, towns, landscapes? While we should be demanding our right for self-determination and independence, we don’t even dare to ask for some form of autonomy. The Kemalist and Islamist Turks will not accept even the basic human and ethnic rights; and the democratic Turks are only a few and totally powerless. What they are selling as democratic reforms is meaningless in practice or simply a show for the entertainment of the EU.

Wake up and understand: The Turks are afraid of real democracy. They instinctively know that it would mean losing more or even all of their conquered lands. They are not the indigenous people of this region and thus feel insecure in foreign territory. 500 years of occupation of Anatolia has not changed this fundamental reality in the Turkish psyche. They are descendants of conquerors and occupiers and there is no way back. As the Ottoman Empire was created and maintained with the Turkish sword, so today physical force remains the only instrument to maintain what is left. With the end of their empire, there is only one remaining target: the Kurds. As long as there are Kurds, they will be reminded that they are illegal occupiers; that it is not their country; that they are intruders; thieves, murderers. Real democracy will necessarily lead to acknowledgement of these facts, recognition of the Assyrian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish genocides, and to compensation. Therefore, real democracy is not in the interest of the Turkish people as a principle, and it will never happen under such conditions.

Wake up and understand: A peaceful, equal, democratic co-existence between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples within the same borders is impossible as the Turks don’t accept the Kurdish nation. Therefore, it is wrong to think and irresponsible to suggest that as Kurds we do not need our own protective state when history clearly demonstrates and teaches that peoples and populations were massacred and genocided precisely because they did not have their own protective states, precisely because they did not have borders to protect them from genocidal assault.

Has mankind changed meantime? Do we now live in a world of brotherhood and justice? Have we overcome our barbaric instincts of attacking and destroying other cultures, of conquering other countries and enslaving native populations? Do warfare and ethnic cleansing belong to the past? Do cultures and countries fully and harmoniously cooperate to overcome their problems? Has the fighting and murdering for resources stopped, has the desire for imperial world dominion ended, are conflicts now being finally settled peacefully?

No, nothing has changed and the US and their “allies” are making sure that nothing will change and business continues as usual.

Democracy is not their language, so it should not be the one to use when confronted by them. This is a life or death confrontation, it is literally about survival or total annihilation. There is no time for illusions and self-delusions, we finally need to wake up and do what is possible and necessary. Let’s be clear and remember: In the Turkish and world media, in the propaganda of Western real-politics, we are terrorists whatever we do or say; the Turks and others make sure that our legitimate demands are officially regarded as terrorism and fought.

We need to focus on the task ahead: It is to fight for the liberation of Kurdistan, for the creation of a united Kurdish state. This is our right and obligation – and it is justified historically, morally, legally! This must be our only goal and it must be the goal of all Kurds under foreign occupation. An independent sovereign state is not a theoretical concept, it is essential to the life and culture of a people; it is the home, shelter, protector of the people. It is the only guarantor of its future! How can one deprecate the importance of a state? How can one suggest that it is an ideological entity; that it is a bourgeois invention or plot? That is absolutely irresponsible and the propaganda of the enemy. Our only chance is a clear understanding of our situation and determined implementation of a strategy leading to the declaration of the state of Kurdistan. Otherwise there will be no freedom, no security, and above all, there will be no dignity, no honour for the Kurdish nation. Without our own state; the Kurdish people will continue being in slavery, will remain at the mercy of hostile, aggressive powers, and will be constantly at risk of total physical annihilation by these powers at any time.

There is no other way but absolute liberation. The West has and will not help. On the contrary, with the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, running through ancient Armenian and Kurdish territories, the American-Turkish-Israeli-Georgian alliance has been cemented for good. We must now seek for some kind of cooperation based on the principle that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. In our case, our enemies’ enemies are Russia and China. The US and Nato have plotted new strategies to harm these countries and keep them out of the central Asian oil and gas markets. Two new power blocks are forming now, the NATO plus local clients led by the USA/EU on the aggressive-imperial side and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) led by Russia and China on the defensive side. We are right in the middle of this confrontation, which seems to be inevitable and could lead to global wars. It will be impossible to remain neutral and if we don’t want to be crushed by both, we need to decide now where we will stand to achieve our goal of a free recognized Kurdistan.

• KurdishMedia.com - By Axin Arbili
• 28/09/2008 00:00:00

Bush, Karadzic, de Veillepin and the ICC: Scoop

by Peter Dyer

Q: What do Radovan Karadzic, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Veillepin and George W Bush have in common?

A: Each lives under the slowly growing shadow of a body of international criminal law.

This law is evolving towards the ultimate goal of holding even the most powerful leaders personally accountable for crimes committed by the State.

It is manifested in international agreements and statutes such as the Geneva Conventions, case law, two ad hoc war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda), and a permanent International Criminal Court.

Radovan Karadzic, former Bosnian Serb President, has been arrested and now awaits trial in The Hague before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Dominique de Veillepin is one of 33 French military and political leaders who have recently been accused by the Rwandan government of arming, advising and in some cases, directly participating in genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda in 1994.

George W Bush ordered “Operation Shock and Awe”-the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq- presenting the world with a clear prima facie case of aggression.

Aggression, in the words of the judgment delivered at the first Nuremberg Trial, is “the supreme international crime”.

Personal accountability by state leaders for the crime of aggression-initiating an unprovoked war-is the most profound as well as the most difficult goal of the continuing evolution of international criminal law.

For this reason, and because Mr Bush is head of the world’s most powerful state, clearly the shadow of the law is at present less ominous to him than to Mr Karadzic or perhaps to Mr de Veillepin.

But there is no statute of limitations for any of these crimes. Things change over time, often unpredictably. And the international community has been working steadily towards this difficult goal for decades.

No doubt the work will continue.

Although the effort to hold leaders personally responsible for crimes of state goes back to the late 19th century, the first significant watershed was the 1946 judgment of the first Nuremberg trial.

A panel of judges from the US, UK, France and the Soviet Union held German leaders personally responsible and punished them for crimes of state, including aggression.

The roots of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals are largely in Nuremberg as are those of the International Criminal Court, although neither ad hoc tribunal charter included aggression.

One of the most significant achievements of the Yugoslavia Tribunal was the first ever indictment of an acting head of state, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, for crimes committed while still in office.

According to the ICTY web site,

“…the question is no longer whether leaders should be held accountable, but rather how can they be called to account.”

A major problem with the two courts was that they were each temporary responses to a specific set of separate circumstances which had considerable legal overlap. The ad hoc approach was clearly limited by issues of logistics, expenses and repetition, many of which could have been more effectively addressed by a permanent court.

The achievements of the two tribunals as well as their limitations gave new impetus to the decades-old effort to establish a permanent International Criminal Court.

On 18 July, 1998, the great majority of countries of the world voted in Rome, 120 to 7 with 21 abstentions, to establish the International Criminal Court. With the signature and ratification of 60 states, including New Zealand, the International Criminal Court came into being on 1 July, 2002,

Six years later, as of 1 June, 106 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. Written into the Statute is a provision for member states to meet seven years after the entry into force (2009) to consider amendments.

Because the Statute is the result of decades of evolution and five weeks of intense negotiations between 148 countries, it is full of compromises. Even so, it is remarkable.

Never before has the world community united to create an institution invested with legal authority to write, adjudicate and enforce international criminal law. And, despite compromises, it is remarkable for the degree to which so many were able to agree on some basics.

Most important among these is a set of “core crimes” over which the Court has jurisdiction. These are: 1) genocide, 2) crimes against humanity, 3) war crimes and 4) aggression (the waging of aggressive war).

Unfortunately, the Rome conference was unable to agree on a definition of aggression. Unwilling to leave out “the supreme international crime” containing within itself the “accumulated evil of the whole”, the conference compromised, including aggression but leaving it undefined in anticipation of a future amendment defining the crime and setting out conditions for jurisdiction.

One of the weaker aspects of the Statute is, of course, enforcement. As American Professor Leila Nadya Sadat, a delegate to the Rome conference wrote:

“Here classic paradigms of sovereignty in which each state is master of its territory prevail…The ICC’s ability to effectively enforce international criminal law remains an open question.”

Unfortunately, a major obstacle to the ICC, enforcement and otherwise, has been the United States. The US was one of seven countries which voted against the Statute—part of a list which included Iraq, Libya, Israel, Qatar and Yemen. Despite the vote, President Clinton signed the Statute on December 31, 2000.

Less than two years later President George W. Bush “unsigned it”.

Other countries such as Russia and Egypt have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Still others such as China and India remain opposed.

If major countries such as Russia, China, India and especially the US ever do decide to join and throw their considerable weight behind the ICC here are a few examples of what the organization may eventually be capable of:

1)”Treaty crimes” such as hijacking and narcotics trafficking, while not yet covered by the Statute, are slated to be discussed and hopefully defined and amended into the Rome Statue as early as 2009.

There would be an international institution with the legal power to apprehend, try and punish future Osama Bin Ladens without the catastrophic destruction and waste of war.

2) The genocide visited by Saddam Hussein upon the Iraqi Kurds (1984-1991) perhaps could have been stopped, or at least punished upon authorization by the Security Council.

3) Assuming that aggression is eventually defined and fully included in the Rome Statute, those who initiate wars of aggression, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will do so knowing there is at least the legal possibility of arrest, trial and prison.

Ironically the United States led the way in establishing the precedent for this when the Allies at Nuremberg tried and punished Germans for aggression and other crimes. At the moment the prospect of an American president sitting in the dock of the International Criminal Court seems remote.

It should be remembered, however, that in 1973, nobody would have believed that 33 years later General Augusto Pinochet would die under house arrest in Chile, facing trial on charges of human rights abuses, including kidnapping and murder, committed during the dark days of Chile’s military government.

A lot can happen in three decades. Leaders come and go. Power ebbs and flows. National and international perspectives and relationships change.

Imagine the chilling effect the real prospect of arrest, trial and prison for starting a war would have on a head of state considering aggression. Such a simple and powerful deterrent could move humanity significantly closer to realizing the original vision of the United Nations: a world without war.

There simply can be no lasting peace without justice. To quote Professor Sadat, “

As humanity struggles to overcome its darkest impulses in this new millennium, impulses that led not only to the slaughter of hundreds of millions during the 20th century, but threaten our very survival, the creation of effective international institutions and regimes is essential…to transform the prohibitions on the commission of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression into real tools to deter the cruel and powerful.”

Next year in New York the ICC Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression is scheduled to conclude their work on a definition of aggression for inclusion as an amendment to the Rome Statute.

A review conference of the full ICC Assembly will convene in 2010 to consider this and other amendments.

The work continues.

*************

Michael Collins: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi Part 1

By Michael Collins

Michael Collins: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 1

Prosecuting George W. Bush for Murder

"Plotting the crime, Bush plans the misleading 2003 State of the Union speech then delivers the lies to citizens and the Congress: "A brutal dictator, -- with ties to
terrorism -- will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the
United States."

~ George W. Bush

Michael Collins
Washington, DC

In his new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Vincent Bugliosi makes a devastating, well documented case that President George W. Bush is guilty of murder as a result of the lies he told to justify the invasion of Iraq.

As a Los Angeles prosecutor, Bugliosi represented the state in 105 major cases and won 104, including each of his 21 murder cases. Since his first book, Helter Skelter, he's been one of the top true crime writers with three number one best sellers and numerous awards.

In his best known case, Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of murder even though Manson was never at two of the crime scenes when the victims were murdered. While he has not been on hand for any combat, should Bush appears before a judge and jury charged with the murder of U.S. soldiers, Bugliosi is confident that he's provided the arguments and evidence required for a first degree murder conviction.

Bugliosi's argument is simple. Bush wanted a war with Iraq. He had to show that a preemptive invasion of Iraq was justified. To do this Iraq had to be an imminent threat to the United States. There were two major problems. Bush couldn't prove any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. More importantly, his own intelligence estimate found that the only scenario in which Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States was through a preemptive attack on Iraq that threatened Saddam's survival, i.e., the Bush proposal.

That was a minor obstacle. Bush cheated. He simply reversed the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) of 2002, classified the original document, and provided Congress with a doctored version to support his claims. By doing this, Bush pushed through an illegal invasion which he had to have known would cost U.S. lives. That, Bugliosi argues, is an act of murder committed against each and every U.S. soldier killed in the war.

I interviewed Vincent Bugliosi on Sunday, August 3, 2008 for 90 minutes. He was gracious and generous with his time. Totally focused on this project, he is working seven days a week to spread the word and find at least one prosecutor to take the case for the prosecution of George W. Bush.

INTERVIEW Part 1

"Apparently its okay for George Bush to take this nation to war on a lie, to be responsible, criminally responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, but it's not okay to prosecute him. Not only isn't it okay to prosecute him, it isn't even okay to talk about prosecuting him. This is unbelievable what's going on in this country. How can we have a country where they permit a president to do what he did and they do absolutely nothing to him except to try to protect him?"

~ Vincent Bugliosi

Forbidden images: the direct result of the lies leading to war Image cc

Interview with Vincent Bugliosi
Conducted by Michael Collins
August 3, 2008

Michael Collins (MC): You recently published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This is a deadly serious charge from a distinguished prosecutor. What's the core of your case, the essence of it?

Vincent Bugliosi (VB): The essence of the case against George Bush is that he deliberately took this nation to war in Iraq on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law, he is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers who have died so far in Iraq fighting his war --not your war or my war or America's war, but George Bush's war.

I can tell you that if the case went to trial, the central, overriding issue at Bush's trial, would be whether or not he took this nation to war in self‑defense as he claimed he did: that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and therefore he was an imminent threat to the security of this country, so we had to strike first in self‑defense.

If Bush could prove this -- he doesn't have the burden of proving it, by the way, but he certainly would assume that burden -- that would be his defense. The prosecution has the burden of showing that he did not act in self‑defense. But if the evidence showed that he did act in self defense, that would be a legal justification for all of the deaths during the war in Iraq.

If the prosecutor, on the other hand, could prove that he did not act in self‑defense and he took the nation to war under false pretenses, then all of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq would become unlawful killings. All of those killings would become unlawful killings and therefore murder.

I spent a great amount of time at the L.A. County Law Library and the Ninth Circuit Library here in L.A. working on the issue of jurisdiction, because I realize that even if someone is guilty of murder, if you don't have jurisdiction to prosecute them, you don't have a case, really. I was unable to establish jurisdiction for the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies who have died so far in Bush's war. He is guilty of those murders, but I could not establish jurisdiction against him for those murders. But I definitely established jurisdiction on a federal, state and local level to prosecute Bush for the murders of the 4,000 young American soldiers that have died so far in Iraq.

MC: You outlined some very specific events that happened in October 2002 and discrete pieces of evidence, one concerning the weapons of mass destruction. Can you just describe those and explain why they're so central?

VB: As I testified before Congress, I have documentary evidence that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA had told him just six days earlier in a classified report on October 1 -- that Hussein was not an imminent threat. That classified report was the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002. But it even gets worse than this. On October 4, three days after the October 1 classified report, the Bush administration put out an unclassified summary version of the classified report so they could give it to Congress and the American people. This unclassified version came to be known as the White Paper, and in this White Paper the conclusion of U.S. intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted.

Every single one of these all‑important words was deleted from the White Paper, so Congress and the American people never saw any of this, and I don't know how things can get too much worse than what I've just told you.

It was because of what I just told you that I got a call on the morning of June 16 here in Los Angeles at my home from a very conservative Republican Southern congressman who voted for the war. He was one of the most outspoken supporters of the war. He told me this. "Bugliosi," he said, "I heard your book on tape, and I'm now convinced that George Bush deceived Congress," or "misled Congress," I think was his word, "misled Congress into war." And he said, "I've already bought several copies of your book, and I've passed them out to colleagues, and I told them, ‘Read the book. We've been lied to.'"

What was he was talking about? He saw that the White Paper did not contain the most important conclusion of all in the classified document, that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. He also learned that the classified document stated many of its conclusions, not the one I just told you, but many of the conclusions in the area of weapons of mass destruction as opinions, using words like "we assess that" or "we judge that Hussein had," let's say, biological weapons. The White Paper that this congressman was given, those words of qualification were completely deleted and it read, "Hussein has biological weapons." He also learned that there were several important dissents from U.S. intelligence agencies with respect to nuclear weapons in the classified report. But in the White Paper that he was given, all of those dissents were deleted.

This is just -- you know, I hate to use the word terrible over again, but it's just absolutely terrible, and the question is how evil, how criminal, how perverse, how sick can George Bush and his people be? And yet they got away with all of this. As I'm talking to you right now, there are well over 100,000 people -- some estimates go in excess of a million -- well over 100,000 precious human beings who are in their cold graves right now because of it. But so far, George Bush has gotten away with murder and we, the American people, cannot let him do this. He's gotten away with murder, and no one is doing anything.

MC: What are the members of the mainstream media and the upper tiers of power doing to bring Bush to justice?

What they are doing -- they are doing something. They're trying to protect him. They're actively trying to protect this guy. Why would they want to protect this monstrous individual who took this nation to war on a lie with the incalculable horror and suffering and sea of blood and screams and mutilations and beheadings he has caused? Why would they want to protect him? They had no hesitancy in going after Clinton for doing absolutely nothing. Clinton has consensual sexual activity outside of marriage, lies under oath to cover it up.

No self‑respecting prosecutor would ever dream of going after Clinton for this. So he did absolutely nothing, and yet, as I've pointed out many times, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, Clinton was savaged by the mainstream media, including the so‑called liberal New York Times and Washington Post. He was impeached by this monstrous, grotesque, obscene Ken Starr. The federal government funded a seven‑year, $70 million effort by Starr to destroy the Clinton presidency. They wanted to hang him in the town square at noontime. No one wanted to protect him. But they want to protect this morally defective, amoral, terrible, despicable human being, George Bush. I have nothing but contempt for George Bush, and yet the mainstream media is out there trying to protect him. I'm not saying there's any conspiracy involved here by the mainstream media to keep me off all these shows. It's just that each member of the mainstream national media feels the same way about it.

MC: Right.

VB: They do not want me talking on national television about prosecuting George Bush for murder. So apparently its okay for George Bush to take this nation to war on a lie, be responsible, criminally responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, its okay for him to do that, but it's not okay to prosecute him. Not only isn't it okay to prosecute him, it isn't even okay to talk about prosecuting him. This is unbelievable what's going on in this country. How can we have a country where they permit a president to do what he did and they do absolutely nothing to him except to try to protect him? I don't understand that. Where am I missing something?

I was telling my wife a couple of days ago, I said, "You've heard about these cold case files," and she said, "Of course." And they even have a TV series, I guess, on it. But I've known about them for years down at the DA's office. Very commonly you'll have just one victim of a murder, just one victim, and you'll have a detective assigned to the case pursuing the killer for 10, 15, 20, 25 years, and then after he retires, some other detective takes over. Some of these cases go on for 30, 35, 40 years. The Black Dahlia case in Los Angeles, I think, goes back in the ‘30s. They're still investigating it 75 years later. And frequently we read in the newspaper that the killer is found back East. He's living under an assumed name and he's brought back to Los Angeles and he's prosecuted. Just one victim and you have this detective tenaciously and endlessly pursuing this case.

So I said to her, "There may be as many as one million victims, not one victim, but one million victims in their cold graves right now decomposing as a result of George Bush's monumental crime." And I said to her -- "What person in authority on the face of this globe is representing these one million people in their graves, fighting to bring about justice for them, pursuing the person, the guilty person who put them there?" And she said, "You." And I said, "No, you didn't hear what I said. I said what person in authority is going after the killer of these million people?" I said, "I don't have the authority of an emaciated moth. I don't have any authority."

I'm searching for someone who does have authority to bring George Bush to justice. I want to find that one courageous prosecutor out there, whether he's in Fargo, North Dakota, or Tampa, Florida, who will bring George Bush to justice.

But when you juxtapose the one victim, maybe she's found lying in a pool of blood in her kitchen in L.A. 30 years ago, and you have this detective for 30 years trying to bring about justice for that murder, and then you have a million people dying over there, and there's no one presently that I know of on the face of this globe who's fighting to bring about justice for these people in their graves, and it's mind‑boggling to me. Am I missing something here?

MC: Does Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) support your efforts? (Conyers is Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary where Mr. Bugliosi gave testimony on July 25, 2008 in hearings on the Kucinich impeachment resolution).

VB: All I know is that he called me and he said he's reading the book and he likes it very much. I got the definite sense that he was supportive of what I'm trying to do. And, as you know, when I testified before Congress, I think it came across in body language and many other ways that he was on my side.

MC: When he held up your book?

House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman holds up Vincent Bugliosi's book prior to testimony by the former prosecutor. Bugliosi was barred from specifically naming the president by the rules of Congress. This is the only Judiciary or other congressional hearing during which a sitting president has been accused of murder. (Video)

VB: He held up the book, and when they wanted to shut me down once or twice, he prevented that. I can tell you (that) he did not specifically say to me, "I agree that he should -- Bush should be prosecuted for murder, and I hope he is prosecuted for murder." He didn't use those words. But the definite implication was that he was very supportive of what I'm doing in the book and he liked the book, but he did not take that additional step.

Now, I'll tell you who did take that additional step, the congressman, the congressman from -- I don't want to mention the state, but a congressman in the South. He said, "Mr. Bugliosi, come November I'm going to be out in the public with you, and I want to be at your side when George Bush, hopefully, is indicted for first degree murder." Now, here's something else when I'm talking about these million people out there.

MC: (On the absence of mainstream support to bring Bush to justice.)

Here's another incredible statistic. I'm trying to bring about justice for those people in their graves. I have no authority to do that, but I'm a private citizen trying to do that. What other person who's a member of the mainstream (is supporting this effort) -- I'm not talking about progressive radio, because they're just as much -- well, they're better Americans than the right wing, but they're not mainstream. They're supporting me. But what person, what other person in this entire country who's in the mainstream -- politicians, prosecutors, the national media, celebrities, many of whom hate George Bush and believe he took this nation to war on a lie -- who has come forward from the mainstream to say, "I support Vince Bugliosi"? You know what the answer is? I think it's zero.

Only one person who's a member of the mainstream has come forward, but not publicly, and said, "I support you, and I want Bush to be prosecuted for first degree murder." That's the congressman from the South, but he hasn't gone public.

MC: Right.

VB: But when we remove him, is there one other person -

MC: You have not received one other endorsement?

VB: I can't think of it. I've got -- progressive radio.

MC: Well, sure.

VB: But what I'm thinking of is, you know, a prominent celebrity or a prosecutor. Or someone at the network or cable or someone at a daily newspaper. I'm talking about a main newspaper, not a small paper or a review of the book. No one that I know of. And that came to my mind just last night, kind of an extension of the cold case thing, and I said to my wife, "Is there someone out there that I don't know about that's come forward?" There's got to be someone out there in this country that's got the courage to say, "Bugliosi is right, and I endorse what he's doing." And if there is that person, I really don't know who that person is. There's only one person who's a member of the mainstream who has come forward to support me, and that hasn't been publicly. I'm talking about the congressman. He's making no secret of it on Capitol Hill. He carries the book around with him. He's been passing the book out. He's contacted several people in the media, high up in the media, and asked them to interview me. I've spoken to one of them already, very high up, establishment media. He's working behind the scenes big‑time, but I think he's coming up for reelection. But he is the only person that comes to my mind in this entire country.

MC: That's stunning.

VB: And the majority of the American people, a poll showed, believe that Bush intentionally misled this country into war. Where is the outrage? Doesn't anyone have the courage to stand up and say, "I support Vince Bugliosi"? So far it's zero, and that just came to my mind last night.

People are always saying how courageous I am, and I'm not courageous. When I tell people, "No, it's all out of anger," they say, "Well, yeah, a lot of people are angry, but they don't have the courage to do anything about it." And I started to think about that, and as applied to me I think this: I have had fears, in taking on the U.S. Supreme Court, taking on the President of the United States, but my anger overcomes that fear. Do you follow?

Continued in Part 2

END

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Vanguard Press

Permission to reproduce this material in part or whole with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, acknowledgement of images, and faithful representation of Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.

Authors Website: http://electionfraudnews.com

Authors Bio: Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. See this summary of his articles plus Election 2004: The Urban Legend and groundbreaking research and commentary in "" His web site, Election Fraud News & The Money Party, offers a collection of resources and commentary on critical issues facing the country.

Historical lesson of the day: who started the War in Irak

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998

By Laurie Mylroie

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

---

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first day without UNSCOM monitoring.

"Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat, namely to overthrow Saddam.

On Oct 30, Radio Free Iraq began broadcasting. In an Oct 30 press statement, David Newton, head of RFI, explained "that in addition to local news about Iraq, programs will focus on democracy, free speech and human rights. 'Under the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein, people in Iraq never a chance to hear about these issues,' said Newton, a former US ambassador to Iraq. He says broadcasts to Iraq will eventually expand to six hours a day, airing in the Arabic as well as Kurdish languages." Transcripts and RealAudio of the broadcasts will be available at http://www.rferl.org

Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House, Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts."

Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq."

The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.

The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.

Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998

Statement by the President
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998

II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION
Sec. 590. Iraq Opposition
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by the Senate that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds made available in this Act and any prior Acts making appropriations for foreign operations, not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraqi National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to provid e not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq. The conferees also direct the Secretary of State to submit a detailed report to the Committees on Appropriations thirty days after the enactment of this Act on the implementation of these activities.

III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act London (October 31, 1998)
Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress.
Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
Saddam has pushed further the day when sanctions on Iraq would be lifted. He has challenged the combined will of the international community and thus he has opened the door for UN action against Iraq under Chapter VII resolutions. He is responsible.
Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and for democracy in Iraq. The INC welcomes this courageous and historic action by President Clinton and thanks him for it.
I will begin immediate consultations with leaders in the INC and others to work for a united response on how best to take advantage of the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act. We will present a united front to maximize the chances of success. We look to President Clinton to support and work with a united INC to achieve our common goals.
The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty.
Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction.